Find a Lawyer

INAM ULLAH RASHID versus THE STATE

Suppressing Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 Section 353/186/324/34 Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), Sections 2 (b) (c), 3 and 4 Counter Terrorism The Act (XXVII of XXVII) 1997), under the jurisdiction of Section 6 of the Special Court, alleged that the police party alleged that it was terrorism when the case was not filed under the definition of terrorist act. Are not included in the definition of action. The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the crime of the accused person is not covered under the Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, a member of the police party who escaped injury, Crimes against the accused Section 324/353/34, PPC. Under which the offenses are not mentioned in the schedule. Further allegations against the accused were that they used rifles and pistols to obtain jurisdiction of the court established under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but the FIR also stated It was not done whether the alleged weapon was an automatic or semi-automatic crime against the accused, therefore, under the suppression of terrorist activities (Special Court Act, 1975) and against the accused under Sections 353 and 186. Crime, even under PPC, was not worth hearing. Crimes stipulated under this Act Court, established under the Pressure of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, as well as hearing the case in view of section 4 of the Special Courts to Suppress Terrorist Activities. Is not an option immigration advocates email from Kotli lawyer